Impact of product maturity on competitive advantage: a study of Unilever, Nigeria

Authors

  • Emuoboh Gbagi Department of Marketing and Entrepreneurship, Delta State University, Abraka
  • A. Anthony Kifordu Department of Business Administration, Delta State University, Abraka

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.58934/jgeb.v4i15.205

Keywords:

Product Maturity, Competitive Advantage, Firm Maturity

Abstract

In recent years the concept of competitive advantage has taken center stage in discussions of business strategy; that is why, one of the major challenges organizations face today is how to have a competitive advantage. In most cases a stand-out product will do the job, since products are perceived as both highly relevant and meaningful, the ability of any one product to stand out in a competitive category will guarantee the success of such an organization. While there are numerous ways to differentiate brands, identifying meaningful product-driven differentiators can be especially fruitful in gaining and sustaining a competitive advantage. Product maturity is when a firm or brand has grown to the point where it outperforms rival brands in the provision of a feature(s) such that it faces reduced sensitivity for other features. This study used a sample of 150 respondents to provide evidence of the relationship between product maturity and firms’ competitive advantage in Nigeria. The study employed the ordinary least square (OLS) regression analysis. This study finds a positive and significant relationship between product maturity and firms’ competitive advantage, as well as a positive and significant relationship between product differentiation and competitive advantage. This study therefore recommends that managers should continue to address competitive advantage with strategic balances using product maturity.

Published

2023-09-30

How to Cite

Gbagi , E. ., & Kifordu, A. A. . (2023). Impact of product maturity on competitive advantage: a study of Unilever, Nigeria. Journal of Global Economics and Business, 4(15), 57–74. https://doi.org/10.58934/jgeb.v4i15.205